1. By : Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga
Student ID. 21025xx
Different types of Democracy –
Implication on accountable
decision making and Good
Governance
Master of Public Policy
Flinders University,
South Australia
16 May 2012

2. Outline of Presentation
 Background
 Representative Democracy
 Communitarianism
 Direct Democracy
 Deliberative Democracy
 Democracy and Governance
 Conclusion
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy

3. Democracy
 Comes from the Greek language and means ‘rule by the (simple)
people’.
 U.S. President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined democracy
as: ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’
 The former British prime minister Winston Churchill (1874-
1965) : ‘No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise.
Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been
tried from time to time’
(Source : http://www.democracy-building.info/definition-democracy.html)
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy
Background

4. Contd..
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy
DEMOCRACY
Key Elements
Guarantee
Basic of Human
Rights
Religious
Liberty
Equal Right to Vote
(One person, One
Vote)
Separations of Power:
Executive,
Legislative, Judicative
Freedom of
Opinion
 There are three basic models of democracy : (1) Direct Democracy, (2)
Representative Democracy, (3) Marxism and One Party Democracy
(Held, 1995).
 Pierre & Peter (2000) argued the challenges of governance by using
scenario 3 such as Communitarianism, Deliberation, and Direct
Democracy.
 So, the question is related to how the implications of the different faces of
democracy on accountable decision / policy making and good governance?
Equal before
the Law

5. Representative Democracy
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy
 Jeremy Bentham (1843 , cited in Held 1995) : Representative
democracy ‘has for its characteristic object and effect … securing
its member against oppression and depredation at the hands of
those fuctionaries which it employs for its defence’.
 James Madison (1966, cited in Held 1995) : Representative as a
chief mechanism to aggregate individuals’ interests and to protect
their rights. Government as a means for the enhancement of
these interests.
 Liberal or representative democracy means that ‘decisions
affecting a community are taken not by its members as a
whole, but by sub-group of ‘representatives’ who have been
elected by the ‘people’ to govern within the framework of the rule
of the law (Held, 1995).
 Representative democracy, based on voting (general election) in a
representative to act on behalf of the people. This is applied by
most countries in the world including Indonesia.

6. STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES
• Creating the key institutional
innovation to overcome the problem of
balancing coercive power and
liberty.(Held, 1995)
• Recognising the political equality of all
mature individuals, ensuring a secure
social environment and a state would do
what was best in public interest
(political representatives accountable to
an electrorate) (Held, 1995).
• Covering the big size of nation or state
area (geographical and social spce)
(Pierre & Peters, 2000, pp. 141).
• Overall impact on policy influence is
small (Hyden et al, 2004). It does not
permit average citizens to exert adequate
influence over policy decisions (Pierre &
Peters, 2000, pp. 139).
• Short-Term Focus : Regular elections
encourage short-term thinking by elected
officials and discourage the development
of long-term public policy solutions to
existing problems. Further, the frequent
elections (national, state,local levels) may
cause voter fatigue (Hall, eHow.com)
• Accountability is low, people are difficult
to exercise control over representatives
(Hyden et al, 2004)
Representative Democracy

7. Representative Democracy
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy
 The findings of the lowest accountability score in countries which
applied representative democracy (such as Indonesia, India,
Chile, Peru and Argentina) are associated with the difficulties of
voters to control their representatives and general lack of trust in
elected representatives (Hyden et all, 2004).
 Liberals and neo liberals argued that representative democracy
provides a way to enhance governance. But they do not agree on
how democracy should be organised. They debate whether liberal
representative democracy is adequate, because voting for
politicians does not lead to active engagement in civil society and
the scale of large liberal democracies can be such that diverse
subgroups or specific interest groups can become alienated
(McIntryre, 2011)
 Representative model is no longer a proper approach to achieve
the accountability in policy or decision making and good
governance.

8. Communitarianism
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy
 The governance status quo is represented by communitarianism which emerges as political
philosophy and a set of more practical recommendation about how to manage public
problems (Etzioni 1995, cited in Pierre & Peters 2000)
 The basic tenet of communitarianism is that large-scale society and government have outlined
much of their utility and they need to be replaced by smaller units of governing. The more
appropriate basis for governing is considered to be the ‘community’, although this term itself
is open to some interpretation. In this view some of the basic mechanisms of governance by
political means are not incorrect; the difficulty is with the scale on which those devices are
being implemented. Large-scale decision making, it is argued, forces the same sort of
individualism associated with economic models of policy; individuals need to have their self-
interested modulated by less selfish commitments to community (Pierre & Peters 2000,
pp.139).
 Communitarianism based on building social capital, using localized decision making. Robert
Putnam (2000) defines social capital as ‘connections among individuals – social networks and
the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’. He emphasised that
norms, trust, and networks could enhance the efficiency in society.
 Communitarism can be understood as a movement in opposition to the ‘neoliberalism of
greed’ (Beck, 1998)

9. Communitarianism
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy
(Source :
http://www.culturemagic.org/Images/Com
munitarianism.gif)

10. STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES
• Decentralizing government as far as
possible and making smaller
communities for more aspect of public
policy.
• Public policy making based on
community values. A shift from
individualism to a more collective sense
of governing.
• Creating mechanism that would
enhance participation and facilitate the
development of meaning in
government.
• Human nature is not sustainable
(Assumption of people participation
and investing a great deal of time and
efforts in governing).
• The heteregenous / multicultural
society and big size area of a state make
it more difficult to deliver public
policies accros communities.
• In reality, the important problems may
not be solvable in a very small unit, due
to some external indicators such as
economic, social, and environmental.
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy (Pierre & Peters 2000)
Communitarianism

11. Direct Democracy
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy
 It is a system of decision-making about public affairs in which
citizens are directly involved. This was the original type of
democracy found in ancient Athens (Held, 1995)
 Direct Democracy based on people voting on issues , in other
words the people decide, rather than representatives making
decision on their behalf
 Direct voting, initiatives or referendum by the people, who vote on
specific issues.
 For example, East Timor Referendum in 1999 (public choices of
nationality, whether still be a part of Indonesia or freedom as a
new country).

12. STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES
• It is very democratic. People decide
themselves on significant issues that will
affect them.
• The people is at least as capable as their
elected representatives of making
difficult decisions.
• The high degree of accountability of
policy decision making.
• Costly, every policies need to campaign
to attract the people attention.
• The emphasis tends to be a single –issue
politics with the majority. This will
ignore the interest of minority people .
• Limited information and discussion
that tend to characterize the campaign
of the referendum.
• The heteregenous / multicultural
society and big size area of a state make
it more difficult to deliver public
policies accros communities.
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy (Pierre & Peters 2000)
Direct Democracy

13. Deliberative Democracy
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy
 The most fundamental practice of deliberative democracy is a process of involving the public in making
decision through open debate and dialogue (Pierre & Peters, 2000)
 Deliberative democracy based on public discussion on issues. According to Dryzek (1999, 2000), this enables
people to think through ―if then ―scenarios and they are less likely to vote selfishly, because they make
connections with other people and because they see the implications for others (McIntyre, 2011)
 Some critics argue that traditional, liberal representative democracy needs to be more participatory.
Representatives in government are too remote from the people and that they do not necessarily reflect
diversity. The problem is compounded if we are to attempt global governance solutions across national
boundaries as this will increase diversity and the size of the populations being represented. Others argue that
participatory forms of democracy can lead to some voices dominating others and that the data obtained is too
complex to manage. Participatory democracy proponents advocate and research ways to use socio-
cybernetics and informatics to manage policy networks and complex data sets, to ensure better matching of
perceptions, services and resources. (McIntyre-Mills 2006).
• Stronger emphasis on the immediate reform of decision making institution – as the answer of the weakness of
representative democracy. Greater public involvement in policy making is essential to enhance democracy.
This contributes to create more numerous opportunities for the public to discuss issues and develop more
complete understanding (“wicked” problems).The lower level of government (local level) is the locus for
developing ‘genuine’ deliberative democracy (Pierre & Peters 2000)

14. STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES
• Creating more numerous opportunities
for the public to discuss issues and
develop more complete understanding
• Deliberative democracy is associated
with participation and construct
discussion among the people (experts
and ordinary people with experiences,
considering the interest of the life of
this generation and the next, with social,
economic, and environmental
accountability.
• More selective of participants. This will
prevent the full range of opinion from
being heard and tends to bias
outcomes.
• The ideal deliberative process is difficult
to achieve in a real world. It requires
much time and other resources
• The more heterogenous community
makes it more difficult to effective
dialogue
• How final decision can be reached in
deliberative process if there is no
consensus.
Deliberative Democracy
(McIntyre-Mills &de Vries, 2011 ; Pierre & Peters 2000)

15. Governance Framework – Six Indicators per Arena based on Principles
(adapted from Hyden et al, 2004, p.188)
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy
Economic
Society /
Market
State
Civil
Society
1. Participation : Freedom of Association
2. Fairness : Society free from Discrimination
3. Decency : Freedom of Expression
4. Accountability : Respect for Governing Rules
5. Transparency : Freedom of the Media
6. Efficiency : Input in Policy Making
2. Fairness : Adequate Standard of Living for Citizen
3. Decency : Personal Security of Citizens
4. Accountability : Accountable for their actions
5. Transparency : Provides Accurate Information
6. Efficiency : Best use of available Resources
1. Participation : Intragovernmental Consultation
1. Participation : Consultation with
Private Sector
2. Fairness : Equal Regulations
applied to all Firms
3. Decency : Respects Property Rights
4. Accountability : Regulating Public
Sector in public interest
5. Transparency : Formulating
Economic Policy
6. Efficiency : Free from Corruption

16. Democracy & Governance
 Governance and democracy have to deal with three options
pertaining to truth (McIntyre-Mills, 2006): a) One truth (monist)
responses defended by grand narratives or conflict, b) No truth
(postmodernist) approached defended by relativism, c) Mediated
(harmonized) responses based on stewardship.
 Democracy is currently increasingly criticized for not
representing the interests of citizens (Institute of Governance
2005) or not taking into account the social justice and
environmental concerns that span national boundaries(McIntyre-
Mills et al 2006)
 Systemic approach to governance and democracy should ensure
the engagement of the people in decision making process with
respectful and transparent manner (McIntyre Mills & de Vries,
2011, pp. 65)
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy

17. Conclusion
 Governance provides a broader and more diversified approach than democracy does.
Civil society appears to be the potential engine for improvement in governance
(Hyden et al, 2004).
 Different types of democracy results on different result of policy making
accountability and good governance. Deliberative democracy tends to be the best
approach because it is associated with participation and discussion of the people
(experts and ordinary people with experiences, considering the interest of the life of
this generation and the next, with social, economic, and environmental
accountability.
 Good governance lays the foundation for a liberal form of democracy. This is a
prerequisite for progress toward democracy and a sustainable form of development
(Hyden et al, 2004)
 Democratic governance : To govern appropriately, a democratic political system must
be capable of linking the demands and wishes of the citizens directly to policies
(Rose 1976, cited in Pierre & Peters 2000)
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy

18. References
 Beck, U 1998, Democracy without Enemies, Polity Press, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.
 Fung, A & Wright, EO 2001, ‘Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory
Governance’, Politics & Society, vol. 29, no. 1, March 2001, pp. 5-41
 Held, D 1995, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan
Governance, Polity Press, Blackwell Publisher, UK.
 Hyden, G, Court, J & Mease, K 2004, Making Sense of Governance: Empirical Evidence from 16
Developing Countries. Boulder, Colorado, Covent Garden, London.
 McIntyre-Mills, J & de Vries, D 2011, Identity, Democracy and Sustainability: Facing up to
Convergent Social, Economic, and Environmental Challenges, Emergence Publications, USA.
 McIntyre-Mills, J 2006, Systemic Governance and Accountability. Working and Re-Working the
Conceptual and Spatial Boundaries, Springer, New York.
 McIntyre-Mills, J. 2003. Critical Systemic Praxis for Social and Environmental Justice:
Participatory Policy Design for a Global Age. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher, Spring
Street, New York.
 Pierre, J & Peters, BG, 2000, Governance, Politics and the State, Macmillan, Chpt 7. Scenario 3:
Communitarianism, Deliberation, Direct Democracy and Governane, pp. 137-159
 Putnam, RD 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon &
Schuster, New York, 2000.
Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy

19. Thank You
Mauliate (in Batak Language)
By : Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga
Student ID. 21025xx